870
Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can't Be Compromised'
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
870 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2305 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whose idea was it to appoint Supreme Court justices for life? That seems like asking for trouble.
Blame the conservatives for abusing the system.
Honestly as much as the lifetime appointment wasn't the worst idea the drafters had in terms of something for long term stability when the positions in every other branch have varying degrees of volatility, not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.
The Constitution seems to have been written with the idea that politicians will have good intentions. The checks and balances seem to be just to enforce compromise and prevent a single bad actor.
It doesn't have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power. I don't know how we fix this without amendments or a brand new constitution
There is. The Military. Its why they swear to the constitutio to protect against all threats foreign and domestic. not a person.
Now, The real question is, how to deal with it if the Military is at best indifferent, or at worst, complicit, and either way refusing to act.
Which should also help shine a worrying light on why the right never wanted the military to investigate and purge white supremacists/fascists/etc
If by "the military," you mean the well-regulated militia (every able-bodied adult male) exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, then sure.
'Cause otherwise you could only be talking about the Navy, as (from the founding fathers' perspective) a permanent standing army was very explicitly and intentionally Not A Thing. (That's why the Constitution limits for appropriating money to raise and support an army to a term of two years or less.)
All democratic government relies on some amount of good faith. Many of the rules are set up to be guidelines for resolving disputes in a civilized manner, and preventing any single bad actor.
The place where this was most respected was in the transfer of power between presidencies.
That goodwill benefits everyone. If you break it, all hell comes loose. It's why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn't.
I'm not so sure the reason is quite so principled. I'm more inclined to believe the explanation in this video starting at about the 6:40 mark: the difficulty building a coalition in the Democratic Party (and especially the conflicting aims of Democratic voters and Democratic donors) causes the party to avoid policy and focus on process instead.
And at the time people involved generally did. The only reason we perceive things differently these days is because we expect different outcomes easing a system designed for something else. Our system of government initially was drafted to protect the rights of white land owning males. And it still does this really well. We've scaffolded a lot of other things on top of that trying to make it more Equitable for everyone else. But it can't seem to stop giving preferential treatment to White land owning males.
The thing is the founders knew that they were going to be ignorant about the future. The further out you try to speculate the more wrong you'll be. They knew that they wouldn't be able to understand the needs of future generations. They expected things to change. They also expected the Constitution to be heavily amended or completely written every few decades. Instead the status quo has largely ignored their wishes instead deifying them and their original creation as perfect and infallible.
Originalism is fairly new i thought? But your explanation makes sense.
I suppose I was a bit small in the scope of what were dealing with today and entire party willing to disregard democracy to accumulate power.
There is a process. They can be impeached just like the President.
It's more than just the Judicial branch that's broken.
They can be impeached. That requires both houses of Congress to be on board with it though, and most people wanting a solution to that problem currently don't want a solution that requires both houses of Congress or a supermajority of state legislatures to be on board because that's not a kind of support they can get. the only other way to remove a justice from SCOTUS is one casket at a time.
There's a funny thing about lifetime appointments.
You can end them whenever you want.
The framers of the constitution. But to be fair, back then they did not expect people to live this long. If anything, blame science. It’s all their fault!
Especially religious ones. Maybe we should have religious tests, just not the way xtianists want them.